update_web_app

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'partially update' and lists some updatable fields but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authorization requirements, side effects, or whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with 14 words, efficient and front-loaded. However, brevity sacrifices necessary detail for clarity and completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has a nested object parameter and an output schema (not described), the description lacks details on return values and the expected format of the 'changes' object. It does not adequately complete the tool's semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description lists some fields (metadata, URL, schedule, zoom, tags) but does not explain the structure of the 'changes' object or provide details on parameter formats. It adds modest value over the schema but insufficiently compensates for the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Partially update') and identifies the resource ('a web app'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_web_app and delete_web_app.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for updating a web app but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_web_app or delete_web_app. No when-not conditions or prerequisite details are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.